tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5044820951794078204.post7761479384476362019..comments2023-10-30T05:38:45.028-07:00Comments on The Infusion: The internal moral compassLKThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05791517233920008067noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5044820951794078204.post-82440802165034443852009-08-05T09:33:09.425-07:002009-08-05T09:33:09.425-07:00I cannot remember which Ken Wilber book I read, ab...I cannot remember which Ken Wilber book I read, about 6 years ago, that gently reminded me (but it seemed like a V-8 moment) of the true meaning of ego, a word that may have been inadvertently misappropriated into a dense psychological/existential thicket by means of the way Freud's work was translated into English (talk about parallax views...). Ego means "I" and it will always mean that. Viewing life and making choices within life's circumstances can only ever be done from the sight and site of the individual. Since your life is yours, choices you make cannot rationally be defined as "selfish" by any person (not even, really, by oneself!); that is what free will is all about. The author's struggle is in how he perceives his choices: do they exemplify ethical egoism? And if they do, is there anything wrong with that? Perhaps, if we were to concentrate on a Christian perspective, we would question whether our motives exemplify ethical altruism, as opposed to ethical egoism. But, to this I say that it is a trap of handwringing (dealing with the past, rather than being in the moment) over something of which God alone is the ultimate judge. And if, as Meister Eckhart posited, God sees through our eyes, then is it not correct that he should see the world as we filter it through our unique perception? Through our unique choices and landmarks and learning of lessons by our actions and reactions to circumstance?qoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06687807550095367481noreply@blogger.com